I've heard raves about the Tokina 11-16, which is not a fish-eye. UW, everyone seems to use the 10-17 fisheye. Any reason? Is it closer focus, is the 11-16 too big? What's the deal?
Tokina 10-17 or 11-16 and why?
- Thread starter Larry C
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
I'm about to own both so I might be able to tell you more in a little bit 
I have no idea if the 11-16 fits in the housing/ports. I really don't intend to use it underwater at this stage. I got it for low light land situations. I'm keeping my Canon 10-22, too, for when I don't really need to have the 2.8 and for outside conditions - the Canon handles flare much better than the Tokina 11-16.
I think people like the 10-17 because you can focus really close, it seems to be fast focus and nice and sharp across the frame, the fisheye isn't too pronounced at most focal lengths and you can actually shoot relatively small things with it. It's also easier to lay hands on; I know lots of people who have wanted the 11-16 but have reported it was backordered from a number of distributors.
Dunno, be interesting to hear what people have to say on this one.
I have no idea if the 11-16 fits in the housing/ports. I really don't intend to use it underwater at this stage. I got it for low light land situations. I'm keeping my Canon 10-22, too, for when I don't really need to have the 2.8 and for outside conditions - the Canon handles flare much better than the Tokina 11-16.
I think people like the 10-17 because you can focus really close, it seems to be fast focus and nice and sharp across the frame, the fisheye isn't too pronounced at most focal lengths and you can actually shoot relatively small things with it. It's also easier to lay hands on; I know lots of people who have wanted the 11-16 but have reported it was backordered from a number of distributors.
Dunno, be interesting to hear what people have to say on this one.
Can't really speak to the 11-16 but I love the 10-17mm. Hardly take my 10.5mm Nikon out anymore. The 10-17 is sharp, close focus, works well in all conditions and fairly quick to focus. If you like WA its hard to beat, personally I like the fish eye look. Just about any WA shot in our Australia, Thailand Burma, Chuuk, Yap, or Lembeh galleries were shot with lens.
Eskasi
Contributor
I own both.... but I have only taken the 10-17 UW. Topside, I use the superb 11-16 for landscapes and the fisheye for buildings or effect.
10-17= Very close focus, MUCH wider, can give a "tadpole/big head" effect in some cases, fisheye curvatures (which at times can be either pleasing or undesirable). Zooming out to the longer end reduces this effect of course.
Tadpole effect
Fisheye distortion/curvature
11-16= No distortion or fisheye effect, not as wide, requires diopters (if I am not mistaken), some are reporting soft corners (which can be remedied by using a large dome port), F2.8 means you can use it in lower light conditions....but I never shoot wide open anyway
If given one choice, I would certainly choose the 10-17 over the 11-16 for UW use...mainly because it excels at both reef shots and CWFA due to the fisheye properties. The zoom range of the 11-16 is fairly limited. If I know I am going to be shooting sharks close up for example, I would probably go for a wide prime lens instead (or my 10-17 if that was all I had). Topside though, the 11-16 is incredibly sharp. More so than Nikon's more expensive 12-24 (which does not have constant F2.8). Here is a sample;
10-17= Very close focus, MUCH wider, can give a "tadpole/big head" effect in some cases, fisheye curvatures (which at times can be either pleasing or undesirable). Zooming out to the longer end reduces this effect of course.
Tadpole effect
Fisheye distortion/curvature
11-16= No distortion or fisheye effect, not as wide, requires diopters (if I am not mistaken), some are reporting soft corners (which can be remedied by using a large dome port), F2.8 means you can use it in lower light conditions....but I never shoot wide open anyway
If given one choice, I would certainly choose the 10-17 over the 11-16 for UW use...mainly because it excels at both reef shots and CWFA due to the fisheye properties. The zoom range of the 11-16 is fairly limited. If I know I am going to be shooting sharks close up for example, I would probably go for a wide prime lens instead (or my 10-17 if that was all I had). Topside though, the 11-16 is incredibly sharp. More so than Nikon's more expensive 12-24 (which does not have constant F2.8). Here is a sample;
They actually complement each other. The widest end on the 10-17 is pretty much the same as the narrowest end on the 11-16 (app. 100°). But there are a few iq-issues as well.
It's hard to get acceptable corner to corner sharpness with ultra wide rectilinears behind a dome port. The resaon is that the dome port creates a curved image which straight lenses have problems with, resulting in fuzzy edges. A fisheye lens has a curved image – works great with a dome port. Some people don't like fisheye distortion, but most seem to think it's ok for UW-images where there are vey few straight lines and natural references. Personally I have a harder time accepting pin cushon from ultra wide rectilineras. A fixed 180° Fe is in many cases too wide, but that's a lesser issue with the Tokina 10-17.
To improve odds with a rectilinear wide angle lens, make sure the lens has a very good CFD (prefferably less than 30 cm) and perhaps use extensions to push the virtual image created by the dome away from the lens or/and put on a weak dipotre on to improve the lens CFD and also to "mess up" the straight lines Use a large dome port.
I would look for a lens that has a proven record with your housing/port and start from there. How a lens performs on land has sometimes very little to do with UW performance behind a dome port.
cheers
It's hard to get acceptable corner to corner sharpness with ultra wide rectilinears behind a dome port. The resaon is that the dome port creates a curved image which straight lenses have problems with, resulting in fuzzy edges. A fisheye lens has a curved image – works great with a dome port. Some people don't like fisheye distortion, but most seem to think it's ok for UW-images where there are vey few straight lines and natural references. Personally I have a harder time accepting pin cushon from ultra wide rectilineras. A fixed 180° Fe is in many cases too wide, but that's a lesser issue with the Tokina 10-17.
To improve odds with a rectilinear wide angle lens, make sure the lens has a very good CFD (prefferably less than 30 cm) and perhaps use extensions to push the virtual image created by the dome away from the lens or/and put on a weak dipotre on to improve the lens CFD and also to "mess up" the straight lines
Use a large dome port.I would look for a lens that has a proven record with your housing/port and start from there. How a lens performs on land has sometimes very little to do with UW performance behind a dome port.
cheers
Ive shot the 10-17 since it came out and love it, as do our customers. We have some of the 11-16s in stock but I have not tested them. I am taking one to Tahiti onThursday and plan to shoot it topside and probably underwater as well. Ill have better feedback after the trip.
Last edited:
OP
Thanks, all. I'll be looking forward to seeing UW pictures from the 11-16.
Eskasi
Contributor
Hey Larry,
You can see samples here;
Tokina 11-16mm in the water - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums
You can see samples here;
Tokina 11-16mm in the water - Wetpixel :: Underwater Photography Forums
Don't forget that you shoot an entire set-up UW, not just a lens. Equally important when judging the results posted on wetpixel:
"...aquatica housing, 9.25" megadome, 29mm extension ring (a touch longer may be better), zoom gear for nik 12-24mm & a canon 500D diopter"
If you have another housing and port, extension, dioptre you will probably get different results.
good luck
/christian
Similar threads
